PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP TENAGA KERJA YANG DI PHK SECARA SEPIHAK

Abstract

The phenomenon of termination of employment has always given birth to conflicts and controversies between companies/employers and employees/workers affected by termination of employment. Termination of the employment relationship between workers and employers (employers), commonly known as layoffs, can occur because a certain period of time has expired that has been agreed upon in advance and can also occur due to disputes between workers and employers. The purpose to be achieved is to find out and analyze the legal protection for workers who are unilaterally laid off according to Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, to find out and analyze the mechanism for resolving industrial relations disputes, and to study and discuss the considerations of the judges of the Central Jakarta District Court in deciding case number 363/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2022/PN Jkt.Pst. The research methods used are normative juridical research. The results of the research in this study are first, that the fulfillment of workers' rights as worker protection due to termination of employment (PHK) is outlined in Article 1 of the Decree of the Minister of Manpower Number Kep-150/Men/2000 in the form of severance pay, service award money, and compensation. As for the big details and their formulation, they are further regulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, namely regarding severance pay in Article 156 Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3). Second, there are 3 mechanisms for resolving industrial relations disputes, namely through bipartite efforts (mediation, conciliation, and arbitration) and lawsuits to the Industrial Relations Court. In decision number 363/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2022/PN Jkt.Pst. Third, the Panel of Judges concluded that the subject of the dispute was that there was a dispute over Termination of Employment (PHK) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to the judge, the reason why the Defendant had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the plaintiff by removing the plaintiff's absence was proven to be without procedure, so that the layoffs carried out by the defendant against the plaintiff were proven to be not in accordance with the applicable laws so that they were invalid and null and void.

Keywords: Legal Protection, Unilateral Layoffs, Employment, Settlement